AC 10439; (September, 2019) (Digest)
March 17, 2026GR 142441; (November, 2004) (Digest)
March 17, 2026G.R. No. 140931. November 26, 2004
RAMON BALITE, JOSE C. LEABRES and FREDERICK M. DE BORJA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FELICIDAD SANDOVAL VDA. DE CARLOS and TEOFILO CARLOS II, respondents.
FACTS
Juan De Dios Carlos filed a complaint against respondents Felicidad Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos II. The trial court granted Carlos’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment upon posting a P20-million bond issued by SIDDCOR Insurance Corporation. Respondents challenged the writ via a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 39267) before the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified the writ for lack of factual and legal basis. Carlos appealed this CA decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 125717). Meanwhile, the trial court rendered a summary judgment in favor of Carlos and granted his motion for execution pending appeal, again secured by a SIDDCOR bond. Respondents appealed the summary judgment (CA-G.R. CV No. 53229).
In the appealed case (CA-G.R. CV No. 53229), respondents moved for execution on the first attachment bond, claiming damages from its wrongful issuance. The CA granted this and issued a writ of execution against SIDDCOR. SIDDCOR, through petitioners (its president and counsel), moved to quash the writ, arguing the CA could not rule on the bond’s liability while the Supreme Court case (G.R. No. 125717) questioning the very nullity of the attachment was still pending. The CA denied the motion. SIDDCOR then filed a petition (G.R. No. 136035) before the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the CA’s execution. Despite this TRO, the CA proceeded to grant respondents’ subsequent motions for implementation and even issued an amended writ of execution. When petitioners pointed out the TRO, the CA cited them for contempt for forum shopping and fined them.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in citing petitioners for contempt and proceeding with the execution despite a Supreme Court-issued temporary restraining order in a related case.
RULING
Yes. The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of judicial hierarchy and the binding effect of higher court orders. When SIDDCOR filed its petition in G.R. No. 136035 and the Supreme Court issued a TRO enjoining the CA’s execution proceedings, the CA was duty-bound to respect that order. The TRO effectively divested the CA of jurisdiction to proceed on matters encompassed by the restraint. By taking cognizance of and granting respondents’ motions for implementation, and by issuing an amended writ of execution, the CA disregarded the Supreme Court’s lawful order.
Furthermore, the contempt citation for forum shopping was unfounded. Petitioners’ act of filing G.R. No. 136035 before the Supreme Court was a legitimate recourse to challenge the CA’s alleged disregard of the pending case (G.R. No. 125717) which touched upon the very validity of the attachment. Their subsequent plea to the CA to observe the TRO was not forum shopping but a proper invocation of a superior court’s directive. The CA’s actions, in persisting with execution and punishing petitioners for obeying the Supreme Court’s TRO, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court annulled the CA’s assailed resolutions.
